The information in this article is accurate as far ask I know, considering the source of where this article comes from. CNN is extremely credible, and is looked on by the United States and the world as an objective news source.
Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?
I felt this article did not fully focus on the issue from a republican perspective. I thought that this article was objective in many ways, but I think it would have been more effective to get more opinions on how actual republicans feel.
Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?
Quoted in this article is presidential elect, Barack Obama, California governer, Arnold Swatchnager, John Podesta (transition chief).
When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?
The media generally takes a more liberal/democratic/left side bias. Although the news is suppose to be objective, Obama does not seem to "get checked" by the media as much because they are his supporters.
Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?
There is truth to these articles, however it does lead one to believe that republicans are causeing more of an uproar than they are. I don't really see any of the republican point of view.
New Questions: How do other Republicans feel? Why are there no real quotes from republican politicians asking to, or rather giving opinions about Obama's choices for cabinet positions? Why does it really matter for republicans to be in the democratic presidents cabinet? I agree with Barack Obama's quote that says, "What I was most concerned with was whether or not they can serve the interests of the American people". Why does this not seem to apply in this situation?
** I feel that this article is credible, yet it slants the situation and seems to make it more controversial than it is, insofar as idealisticly in a democratic president's cabinet would be democratic representatives. I think this this article can be enhanced by giving more factual views on the way republicans really feel. Credible sources are used, but a whole entire group is left out. Article 2 Dog Left Outside Freezes To Sidewalk - WISN MILWAUKEE - December 5, 2008 Article Link:http://www.wisn.com/cnn-news/18214694/detail.html
Is the information in a given article accurate?
This article seems accurate. It is coming from a prominent Television news source in Milwaukee, WI.
Is there missing context that might undermine the premise of a given article or television segment?
I was actually pleasantly surprised because I thought this article seemed to be as unbiased as it could be.
Which experts are quoted--and, in turn, who isn't allowed to give their opinion what does this leave out?
Todd Wagner, the neighbor, Carey Payne, with the Sheboygan Humane Society.
When TV news shows (or newspaper/internet editorials) feature a point/counterpoint debate, what political spectrum is offered?
This article is geared toward humanities and humane treatment of animals
Is the selected media simply reinforcing the status quo on a given topic, even though there may be no reason to assume that it is correct?
The media is simply sharing the information that is ethically right. In this case, the dog was being treated poorly, and was left out to freeze, regardless of the situation.
New Questions: * How was the dogs behavior to influence this type of treatment? * How does the dog act at the human society and with the prospective adopters? * Did the woman have any other pets? * Why did the neighbor not say anything before?
*** Honestly, I was very impressed with this article and the way it really did relay the facts. It referenced both sides of the story which was definitely a positive. They did touch on the behavior of the dog, not that it justified the treatment of the dog, but it gave the other side of the token. Additionally, they have quotes and information from an expert at the human society and not just a nosy neighbor, which showed credibility.
After watching the film, Growing Up Online, I was shocked, appalled, and then I got over it. I think about these young people and say "they're crazy", or "what possessed them to do that?", or "what are they thinking"? The most frightening thing about this film is that these kids are just like me, just like I was. Frontline represents issues in a hard-hitting way, yet there is a great wealth of truth in this documentary. Growing up with social networking and the Internet have positive gains involved, however these technologies effect lifestyle not necessarily for the better.
Most of what I saw in the video came at no surprise. Fights beginning online and carrying through to the real world happened while I was in high school. People social networked, IM'd, and Chatted all the time. This is a common thing to me. In today's society, among young people, it is the norm. What struck me as out of the ordinary is the weight these sites have on teens lives. The involvement of these teens is the issue. I am not against students and teens being involved in social networking, but when one goes as far as to have a secret identity, or rather when one is living a double lifestyle of sorts, that becomes and issue.
Vanity is extremely prevalent within teen lifestyle and in American society as a whole. There is a constant promotion of the self, which helps to feed this social networking kick because essentially, that is what it is; Reinventing yourself so that you are someone else, or someone that you want to be. Everyone is trying to be original, unique, and different, and when everyone is, no one will be.
In keeping with the double lifestyles that teens entertain and when thinking about teens as they build their identity, the Web 2.0 is a place for rediscovery, secrets, and other unheard of things. When the young girl mentioned that she secretly battled with anorexia, I was stunned. This is a girl who has everything going for her, but has this secret that the Web 2. 0 keeps for her.
I also realized that cyber-bullying was a very serious issue in the lives of American teens, so much so that one would kill himself to be rid of the humiliation. I was so deeply hurt when they shared the story of that young boy who killed himself because people were talking about him in school, harassing him online, and playing cruel tricks on him. One wouldn't think that this was anything to die over, but if people would only look back and think about how difficult the pressures were during middle and high school, they would understand that for a young person it is a lot to deal with.
Now, what I begin to consider is where these young people are getting ideas from. What messages are being sent that make young people assume that these things are OK? The media tend to put out messages that portray a lifestyle that is not the "norm" as if it were, "the norm", causing students and teens to be pressured to act in a way that is not really the norm, and in a manner that is not necessarily a positive contribution to their lifestyles. Teens, tweens, and young adults are the target audience of advertisers because this is the most lucrative group. This is business and is a part of the capitalistic democracy we live in. However, the means to which advertisers promote and get private information that drives their campaigns is where the technicalities come in to play. Data mining is the process by which businesses, organizations, or whoever find patterns in private data that give information on what people like and how to target specific groups of people.
Through networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and others encourage dual lifestyles that are not necessarily positive. Both of these networking sites have applications that are ways of advertising, and allow for advergames to be on their sites. I know at one point I found myself playing a game that was clearly an advertisement just because I was board. These games are ways for advertisers to gather information on you from your computer, and a way of viral marketing.
Ultimately, I feel that what people do is their business. The problem is that these people are not even grown, full fledged citizens yet. This being stated, I believe that much of the reasons for these lifestyles and the corruption of our young people by the Web 2.0 technology has to do with parenting, and with what parents allow. I mentioned earlier that these kids remind me of myself, but I for one had limits that were set by my mother as to how long I could be on the Internet, for what, and they were just real with me about the possibilities, positive and negative, that can occur online.
Dunbar explains theories in his article, Who's Watching the Watchdog about how the industry and government are essentially working together to build big business and industry in the Multi-media and entertainment industries. The Center for Public Integrity is an organization that is in place to watch over policies made by the FCC and wants to make sure that they are making fair policies that the public is informed about.
The "Spinning Door" theory refers to people in government positions for the FCC moving jobs and being hired directly within the industry and vice-verse. The example used in the book refers to Dorothy Attwood who began as chief of local telephone regulation at FCC and then moved to SBC as the senior vice president for federal regulatory strategy. Dunbar summarized the problems by stating that moving between government and industry jobs is not illegal, it causes issues because proprietary information that is confidential may be compromised and used in this new position. There are policies in place that are suppose to prevent such issues from happening, however in the FCC, because Attwood did not work a high enough position, she was overlooked and was able to work immediately.
"Frequent Flying" refers to members of the FCC that accepted travel and entertainment gifts from big media telecommunication and broadcast organizations. These gifts included anything from tickets to games to "frequent flier" miles, which is where this theory gets its name. This article/theory highlighted examples of FCC members taking over $8.2 million dollars in these gifts. The problem comes when one considers how FCC officials can make unbiased and objective decisions that will benefit all, when they are constantly being courted and bought by industry executives. For example, "FCC officials took 330 such trips to LasVegas during the period, 173 to New Orleans, 102 to New York and 98 to London"(136). Dunbar states it best when he states that "the trips are unseemly and represent and improper coziness between FCC officials and the businesses they regulate" (137). In simple terms, FCC members were using organizations to pay for trips, which create and uneasy relationship that would not necessarily allow members to do their jobs effectively. The practice was viewed as wrong, rightfully so. Essentially, "frequent flying" is bribery.
When some one speaks about things done "Behind Closed Doors", they are usually refering to things done privately, out of the public eye. The same applies for FCC officials and industry executives. These meetings allow FCC officials and broadcast industry executives to discuss policy reform in private. This does not contribute to the idea of democracy. Called "ex parte" meetings, they are allowed by the FCC and are not recorded. They are closed door meetings that FCC outsiders must put in notice to attend. Essentially, meetings and issues are covered out of the public eye so that there are no interferences between the industry and manipulating the issue.
Posted in an article by Cnet news on December 2, 2008, Free Press is another organization that is pushing for Obama to persuade the FCC to prioritize an Open-Net policy and to make news channels and radio stations more local again. The most I see concerning reforms within the FCC currently are articles appealing to Obama, highlighting the fact that change does need to occur. The immense media coverage shows me that people are beginning to be more concerned with the policies that pass and affect us all.
Media and marketers understand that the demographic of young people, teens in particular between the ages of 13-17 are impressionable and spend the most money in our economy. Young people in the United States spend billions and billions of dollars each year. With media, advertisers, and marketers constantly competing for the attention of the public and the youth in particular, people have become immune in a sense to advertisements and marketing efforts. These days, products and brands just become lost in the "sea of messages" American society drowns in everyday. Although traditional advertising and marketing tactics are failing, professionals are adapting and creating new tactics that penetrate the minds and inner beings of the consumers. With the new neuro-marketing that has entered the scene, consumers are being persuaded more than ever to make unnecessary purchases and to be loyal to particular brands based on the campaigns they put out.
In keeping with the theme, the teen demographic is the most profitable of them all. Marketers have realized that if a brand can identify with or as something that is cool, The brand will be promoted, the company will make a profit, and people will seek to purchase the product and/or service. Marketers have done much research and studies to try and figure out what is cool and what makes things cool, and how things become cool. The media has generally been successful in this endeavor and many times have determined what is cool based on what they feel mirrors teen culture and teen ideas. The question then forms as to whether media and marketers have mirrored teen desires, lifestyles, and actions, or if they have begun to manufacture teen desires. Personally, I feel as if the media and marketers have begun tomanufacture teen desires. Media marketers have used nuero- marketing techniques to identify with consumers and to create a culture that will persuade them to purchase and act according to a product, a brand, and/0r a lifestyle.
Branding has become ever so important in our society. People associate brands with better products concerning food, drinks, clothes, shoes, and accessories. Although this is an issue concerning everyone, it seems especially common for young people and teens. I remember when I was was in middle and high school, and I remember asking my mom to only buy my Tommy Hilfiger, or U.S. Polo, or DKNY, or other name brands that essentially make the same clothes as the no name brands. Young people felt at that time and more than likely still do to identify with branding as being a part of a particular culture. I do still like name brands and designer clothes, but I have since grown out of this stage. However, the obsession with Nike seems to be an excellent example to highlight as brands become a culture and promote a lifestyle, so much as so that people almost ignore the product. When speaking with my friends about Nike, they agreed with me also in saying that even though you aren't an athlete, the Nike commercials make you want to exercise, make you want to push hard, and make you want to pursue a sport. Nike has created a culture of determination and unity among athletes as far as promoting that you give it all you got, all the time, and that Nike can help you do that.
Even though this commercial depicts pain, it unifies all athletes with the idea that sometimes your all isn't good enough. It shows that glory and achievement is painful. One must push past the hurt!
This video is an example of the competitive athletic culture Nike promotes. It makes you want to be an athlete and work hard.
An example highlighted in the advertising/marketing video we watched was Sprite. They noted that Sprite built a culture around it's brand, having direct correlation with hip-hop, which at the time was cool and steered the cool factor among teens.
Branding and creating a brand culture is not the only tactic used by marketers to claim this money filled demographic. A tactic that was not very influential to me but what penetrated many youth was the idea of a Cultural Character. An example of this would be characters on the show Jack*ss. By appealing to young, teenage boys, marketers are able to promote a "cool" lifestyle that ultimately works to sell products and lifestyles.
Narrow-casting is word choice. This is when marketers or public relations practitioners work to choose words that a target demographic or audience is most receptive to. The most notable example I can thing to use was the entire political campaign during this election. Politicians catered their messages specifically for select audiences, changing the language so that people could more thoroughly identify and understand the messages they were sending out. I will not highlight one over the other, because narrow-casting can be found acted upon in both parties. This is definitely an effective way to penetrate consumers and to get them to understand and to do things in the desired way.
To conclude, all the tactics I mentioned were used in my era, and are still being used today. For future marketing, narrow-casting would be ideal. Using word choice to reach specific audiences is effective because once marketers know how their audience thinks, they can put out messages and promote products that will "solve" their problems. The question then is, are marketers "solving" problems or making more? I also am considering what can happen beyond narrow-casting and using word choice, and how it can change to being specific to change messages per groups of people. For example, a tide commercial would have a commercial catered to parents, another to students, another for men, for women, etc. The future of marketing seems to be more and more direct.
Marketers continue to pick the brains of the public and to invade any personal space, creativity, and thoughts left in our culture. The media and marketers claim to promote diversity and to contribute to culture, but in some ways, I think it is taking away.
1. CWN's are Community Wireless Networks. These potentially contribute to communities by allowing open, non proprietary wireless access to citizens for little or no cost to them at all. Being built and run by the government, maintenance fees and building fees would be covered with the taxes of the land. Students and community members will have more free and open access that will contribute to the overall sharing of communication and information. The "Digital Divide" between resource rich and resource poor areas can potentially be closed as information and wireless access become available to areas that were overlooked or not targeted by cable companies. Wireless networks are generally less expensive than the cable and wire networks we are familiar with now. That being said, CWN's will provide equal access to wireless and Internet technology which will contribute to the overall flow and sharing of information.
2. Major wireless network companies protect their monopoly's by creating proprietary networks and products that are not adaptable to other networks or technological products. According to Meinrath, "technological standards (often set by industry groups to ensure their own profitability rather than establishing the best option for the public) of these technologies" (220). Instead of caring for the best interest of others, industry providers usually care most about the profitability of the company. Company and industry mergers contribute to locking the industry. An example given in the book is the merger between Cingular and AT&T. Logically, one would think that prices would go down when something like this takes place, however when Cingular the new AT&T decides to pay to use Sprints infrastructure, it is just another way to limit and control service instead of expanding it. The plan is to confuse the people so that switching and searching for the better service and better options become more impossible and unable to do. Bundling is also an issue in the competing technological industry. This is another way to lock out the competition and to mislead the public by selling inferior products to maintain control over competition (221). Intel sells a bundle like deal where you can get two chips and two different services for one price. However, less expensive options do exist and have proven in some cases to be more reliable than this bundled chip. Meinrath states that, "a Centrino notebook is a 'bundled' product. Like most bundled products, (for example, the add-on services that phone companies always try to sell their customers), this is a bum deal for the end user" (221).
3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies result in fewer companies controlling more of the wireless market shares because if larger companies are buying out all of the small technologies, than they are cornering the market and securing profitability for only a few people who can afford to act quickly. The example from the book features Behemoth wireless telecommunications companies investing in, "new technologies before they had even entered the mainstream consumer market, often paying an enormous premium to protect themselves from possible future competition (and passing these costs on to consumers)" (220). Companies lock the market and overcharge consumers because they can. With no competition, there are no other options for the consumer who is looking to save money. Companies like Microtell Communications have bought up all the assets of companies like MobileStar that have gone bankrupt for cheap, and, "the end result has been a steady march toward fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of wireless market share" (220).
In class, we watched a video dealing with money as debt and it truly opened my eyes. I always wondered where money came from and why it didn't just grow on trees. This entire discussion reminds me of one as a little child. Do you often recall the times when you may have asked for money from your parents and they say, "Who do you think I am? Do you think money grows on trees?" Children often reply yes, and parents are quick to share that the abundance of money is not the case. Through this movie, I was able to see how money is "created", how it becomes important to us, and why there is generally limited access to it. In easy terms, money used to be limited because gold, what people traded and considered to be valuable was limited. However, through the banking industry little paper promissory notes have been developed that are easily traded through society. This is great initially if each paper really did accurately represent the amount of money backing it up in the safe, yet it doesn't. Bankers as well as the government are able to make up money through loans and mortgages a.) according to the signed agreement of the patrons obligation to pay the debt back, and b.) based on the actual money they have in the bank. For example, for ever gold dollar that actually exist in a banks safe another 9 dollars can be created. There a few problems with this system. First, if the initial gold depositors desire their gold back, then much of the system will collapse because the bank may not have enough to accommodate the requests. Second, money is made up to give out loans and mortgages from the banks. The banks add interest, and that leads to the question of where that money will come from. If people are borrowing money to begin with, where would they really get money to pay this additional expense? It is a moral, ethical, and practical issues. The last issue I will bring up and discuss is that we are forever put in a system of debt. If everything were paid off, there would be no money because there would be no loans or made up money to support other made up money. My opinion is that this system is inconsistent and unreliable, and needs to be completely revamped. I like the ideal of the local barter system where people can borrow money and pay it back without interest.
Looking at Grignon's 4 critical challenge questions, I answer as follows:
1. Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when the government could just create all the interest free money it needs itself? * Governments choose to borrow money from private banks instead of creating it themselves because these private businesses and corporations, including banks are what drives the economy and are what support the world trade system. 2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?
3. How can a money system based on perpetual accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?
4. What needs be changed to allow the creation of a "sustainable economy"? * The entire system of money needs to be changed in order to create and encourage a sustainable economy.
1. Do broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to the local communities needs and interests? Give examples to support your answer.
* There is not a complete yes or no answer to this question. In some instances, I feel that radio and television quickly respond to local issues, but I don't feel that it is done as quickly and effectively as it could be. If I may be clearer, I don't feel that radio does a good job in effectively responding to local issues, at least the stations that people are listening to. There may be talk radio stations that cater to the needs and views of the local community, but many music stations, which is what my age demographic generally listen to don't focus on local issues that resonate in the community unless it is of relevance to them, their station, or in promotion of some sort of affiliate or corporate partner. Local television news shows do tend to be more local in their broadcasts, but I am noticing that they are no longer as community oriented either. For example, national coverage is put on the political election of our new presidential leader. However, there is less coverage on local elections and positions available. Overall, I feel that the television and radio could do more in focusing on the needs of the community and not just what is interesting to them. I think to accurately answer this question, we need to separate the needs of a community verses the interest and desires.
2. Are there certain kinds of local programming (Public Media Values) that should be available, but are not being provided by broadcasters? what could some examples of these be?
* Local programming and Public Media Values should be available and provided by broadcasters in my opinion. Local news programs should be provided as well as local coverage on important events that are highlighted in the community. For example, a local high school commencement should be covered in local news programs because it is relevant to the city and community. This is local news that people will really care about because it will relate to them. I think that access to local programming is made available to citizens, but the loopholes and things you have to do to access these opportunities makes it so it is almost unattainable. For example, my local news channel in Milwaukee allows for kids to read the lunch menu for the city school system and will sometimes highlight local artists and theater, but those usually come at the end of a segment or are a short segment at the end of the program when no one is watching anymore.
3. What could the Federal Communication Commission do to promote localism in broadcasting? Explain three of these examples of public-service-oriented projects that are already in process across the US.
* Localism in broadcasting can be promoted by allowing time for community representatives giving community news. This would be done in collaboration not only with news shows, but with networks to allow access to broadcasting at affordable rates for citizens. Examples of localism that are in affect currently are: One example is the UTOPIA ( Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency), which is a project that will provide quality, low cost cable services by considering cable and the upkeep of them as general city costs. It is a large investment and is definitely localist, but will cause a lot of issues when it comes to larger cable and media providers. Another example is the wireless public airwaves to give high-speed, wireless access in a way that is public and beneficial to the people. This would allow local community members to voice their opinions without worrying about the major companies over charging or pushing their big, broad, thoughts and ideas. Another example of localism is the licensing of noncommercial community radio stations. Groups such as the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia have helped to pioneer the movement that promote the local community citizen and artist to dedicated community listeners. The last example I will use to describe localism is through my personal experience living home at Milwaukee, WI. Although stations are syndicating shows and are forming large conglomerates, the Milwaukee Public School system has an hour show on Saturdays I believe that highlight community happenings within the school system. I think this is an example of localism and local communities taking advantage of media access.
extras: What Stanford professor and lawyer that we have discussed before is mentioned in this essay? What organization is he the founder of?
When reading McChesney's article and comparing his opinions to the realities I perceive in the media and government, I came to question whether the media is contributing to our society or if it is an eroding factor, contributing to the general deterioration of it. McChesney highlighted the lack of concern American society has in regards to voting and toward traditional moral values that our nation has been built on since its founding. Instead of the focus being on establishing a truly democratic society, it seems that government is solely devoted to capitalism and capitalistic ideas. Reading this essay and based on the realities that I currently live, I ask whether America society is geared at promoting democracy or if money and capital is the driving factor? Is democracy just a way to cover America's solely capitalistic and profitable ways? When commenting on the the media system in our society McChesney says, "the media system is set up to maximize profit for a handful of large companies. They system works well for them, but it is a disaster for the communication needs of a healthy and self-governing society."(11)
I agree that for a healthy and self-governing society, our media must be revamped so that it offers the most beneficial information concerning the public. In relation to our current political climate and situation, I notice the media does not really focus on the issues on the candidates, but on the candidates themselves. While this is an important aspect of choosing a leader that one must consider, policy contributes to most of what we want in a leader. We need to know what this person can do for us. We need information that will let us know whether we are choosing a leader that will have the best interest of the people in our democracy in mind, and will not have hidden agendas to expand and concentrate their business within the respective industry they are a part of. McChesney states that "the solution to the the media crisis requires widespread, informed public participation in media policy making."(12) Our media system and government system cannot and will not be positively changed until the public becomes informed on issues, and is capable and willing to participate in the creating of policies.
The case on the Critical Art Ensemble is an interesting one to me. I always had my own personal thoughts on the pharmaceutical and food administrative industries, and this case further feeds my interest. It began when I was a little girl. My mother was always very critical of the foods we ate and the use of plastic. She always commented about the chemicals in things and how they would affect us in the future. When I was younger, I thought all the stuff she said was nonsense and that she was just being paranoid. However, as I have gotten older and have learned things for myself, I understand that there is a great deal of truth in what she was saying. Beyond what my mother taught, I took Topics in Nutrition, a class offered here at Marist and my teacher was a very purist/organic type. I appreciated her methods because she explained the different toxins in foods that our bodies do not positively react to. She also shared with us how food was not as pure as it should be because the industry is only interested in profiting at the expense of the people. She also mentioned how cures and remedies were not pursued because it would collapse the pharmaceutical industry, who want to keep us hooked on over-the-counter drugs that only temporarily relieve our ailments.
Now that I've given a little background on my views about food, pharmaceuticals, food processing, and chemicals, understand that I was not surprised by this case. Sadly, an act that was put in place for the benefit of people and American Society to enhance our public safety has been misused and abused. It is not fair that little guys are attacked when they challenge a large industry or corporation. When this happens, we loose sight of the things our country was built on. Things like freedom of speech, public opinions, and privacy. It was unfair for Steve Kurtz and CAE to be trialed on account of sharing research and bio-organisms. In this country, we are encouraged to be thinkers, be critical, and be creative. The government attempted to stifle his efforts on creativity, criticism, and expression, and I'm glad they failed. Additionally, Kurtz was not even an official "accredited" and professional scientist. All of the things he did were basic and done in the eye of the public.
By Kurtz being an amateur scientist, he felt that he was able to be under the radar. Because he was an amateur, it would more difficult for him to be corrupted by big industry because his career did not depend on it. The author of this article questions why artist are needed to be scientist in order to get public attention about the food we eat. She states that (Pentecost, 3): "[I]t is precisely because of our status as non-scientist, as non-experts, not invested in careers in the field, it's because of our status as amateurs, that artists are able to render important issues to a public through the public space accorded to art in our culture. This is because of what is happening in the sciences, an intense case of transformation of knowledge for the public good, into knowledge privatized and applied to profit for a few." CAE and Kurtz worked to expose the happenings of big industry. I take this subject to heart because we are the food we eat, and it is important to know what we are putting in our bodies. I was shocked when I read that there are really no studies on genetically engineered food, and the study that did happen was shut down after having found some damaging information.
When comparing this case and the discussion of The Cult of the Amateur, I feel that this is a valid point against Keens case. Keen argues that the amateur is taking over the industries and is making it hard for big businesses that have been around for a while to be profitable. What I brought up earlier in the class and what I bring up now is what if those big businesses need to be destroyed? What if the system does need to be revamped and revised? In the case of the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, I believe that is the case.
Disguising the invasion of ones house and property with the PATRIOT act is a low blow. I feel that this act was genuinely put in place to further protect American people. However, I feel that the government is abusing and misusing this tool to survey people without them knowing and using the information for their own personal interest. This is unacceptable. Privacy is one of the freedoms we have been granted as Americans, and through the PATRIOT act, we continue to loose it on tiny step at a time. The government seems to use fear to insist the use and the need for the PATRIOT act. It should be used to help protect our country, not toblind us by hiding valid truths.
In closing, the amateur has shoved industry in the shoulder. The amateur has proven to do what what the professional cannot and will not do. This is sad because we assume that doctors and scientist have the best interest of the people in mind, but many times, they are only after money and profit.
New technology is wonderful and has opened many doors for people to be exposed to things they would not have otherwise been. It is also very dangerous as it progresses because the amount of information being fed into the Internet through Web 2.0 can be extremely dangerous. So much information is shared online, and there is so much potential for people to watch and be watched. It's not just a matter of keeping your information private anymore. The issue is that there is no privacy, and that people are constantly being watched. This surveillance issue is contributing to our information being put out to the world, but it also modifies our behavior and actions by us knowing that we are constantly being watched.
Let's first talk about Google Earth. My first impression of this technology was, "wow, this is kind of cool". However, later on as it grew and as my house became exposed to the entire world when my address was entered in Google, it made me think how potentially dangerous this could be. People can not only find out my address and know where I live, they can Google it and see where I live. I for one am not pleased at this new technology because I think it has potential to breed stalkers.
Secondly, one of my partners shared a story with me about a man working at Dunkin Donuts who fought while being robbed because he was concerned with his image and what people would think when they saw this video on you tube! This is ridiculous! The robber could have shot and killed this guy or beat him up really badly, yet all he thinks about is the surveillance video getting on you tube and what people would think of him. This story is a little different because instead of the information being put out there unwillingly or unknowingly, this guy intentionally modified his actions so that he could place the video on youtube.
Thirdly, we brought up the issue of constantly being watched, filmed, or photographed even without knowing it. Student athletes are required to follow very strict rules, some of them including not having inappropriate pictures (pictures with alcohol and other such things) being taken and posted anywhere. The issue is that people, anyone can take a picture or video these days, post it, and you won't even know. Coaches, employers, professors, and anyone are constantly looking out for pictures and such. There is no sense of privacy anymore which is sad.
The main theme of discussion amongst our group is that this surveillance technology can be so destructive because it heightens peoples awareness of people watching all around them. People know that they are constantly being watched and this modifies and influences their behaviors and actions. This problem is evolving in such a way that people know they are being surveyed and are doing things to get attention. I am personally terrified of where this technology can go, but on the side, I am excited about all the positive possibilities resulting from this technology.
This iReport phenomenon is very interesting to me. It lets people write about stories that are of interest to them and their network of people. IReport seems to be the voice of the people insofar as people can write and report on things they feel are important to them, using the logic that if it's important to them, it would be important to others as well. I noticed they have a lot of opinion questions on the site which seem to encourage people to think critically and "outside the box". That being said, although iReport is cool and allows people to report on what they want, CNN still seems to promote an agenda of what should be covered. CNN still promotes an underlining agenda and pushes people to follow-up where they cannot and when they cannot. Another example is how CNN notifies one on iReport a general breaking story, almost as if to encourage one to upload and research information for that is relevant to that topic in particular. On the side of CNN, iReport is a way for CNN to for lack of a better term take advantage of the little guys. An iReport reporter was paid by CNN to have exclusive rights to sounds from the Virginia Tech Shooting, according to our friend Wikipedia. While that person did get paid, I'm sure CNN got so much more selling it to other news networks, channels, and affiliates. Although iReport promotes free expression, it is just another way for CNN to say that they got it first, that they were there first, and I think it is being done partly to benefit them. CNN.com is more world news with professional journalist reporting. CNN seems to have more world news and information that is not as accessible to the everyday citizen. Tougher stories that take more time to develop and that require more research are more common on CNN.
For this posting, we've been asked to discuss a truth available on the Internet. Prior to this, we discussed the difficulties of finding "truths" and credible information on the Internet, especially with the new Web 2.0. However, in the midst of all the chaos on the Internet, there are sources where credible information is available. We like to think that large news corporation sites like CNN.com and MS NBC are credible sources that give truthful information and usually they are.
A truthful site that I want to bring attention to is snopes.com. This website is around to bring light and truth behind different myths, lies, and untruths that circulate around the Internet. Their slogan is rumor has it! For example, there was an email that got sent to me about a kid who had Leukemia and sending the email will help raise money for a surgery that would correct a lot of his condition (or rather something along those lines). This email compelled me so much that I forwarded to everyone in my address book, which I NEVER do. One of the recipients of this email was my aunt, and she replied back to me sending me a link to snopes.com. She said that the email was a myth and sent me a link supporting the reasons why. If you are interested, check it out: http://www.snopes.com/inbo xer/prayer/hodgkins.asp. I think websites like this help to keep truth on the web and help to stop lies and untruths from spreading and making lasting impacts. Snopes.com talks about a lot of issues and stories and help to bring forth the truth in this Web 2.0 culture filled with fast and often incorrect information.
This was a difficult assignment for me because when required to think of an "untruth" on Web 2.0 on demand, I froze up. I waited and waited, and looked and looked hoping to find some "untruth" to expose. What I have come up with was mediatakeout.com. It all came about when my housemate and I were watching a reality show called I Love Money on VH1. As we were watching the episode, she told me that somehow, media take out found out that Hoops (a competitor on the show) won. The season finale has not occurred yet, and while we don't know if this is a truth or a rumor yet, it is an example of how news that isn't so important and that may not be credible can spread so quickly. This may or may not be true, but this website did the same thing last year revealing the winner of hit reality show, I Love NewYork. That was true, this may not be, but it is INSANE how fast news travels whether it be at the right or wrong time and whether it be true or false. This website also deserves some acknowledgment in the "untruth" issue because of the large variety of stories it posts about celebrities, both true and untrue and how they become common knowledge before they validated and checked for truth. I want to say that gossip on this site can be contrasted with real media sources such as CNN.com and MSNBC because they do have entertainment sections. My concern is that even those sights filter through celebrity gossip that is not neccessarily truth.
